The following is taken from the February 1992 issue of the Cor Unum, official publication for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).  The 1983 Code of Canon Law was introduced into the Society of St. Pius X in February 1992, less than one year after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.   When the SSPX becomes canonically regularized, the principles outlined herein will go out the window and the 1983 Code of Canon Law will become the sole binding document.




  1.  The purpose of the law is to serve justice. Ecclesiastical laws have the objective of allowing the faithful to practice justice by placing them in favourable situations where Christian life is made possible and by removing situations that are dangerous to faith and customs.
  1. The reception of the new Canon Law poses in this regard a real problem of conscience for Catholics. Firstly, the Law distances itself in a dramatic way, in its totality and in detail, from the protection due to Faith and Morals. And secondly, we do not intend to jeopardize respect for legitimate authority.
  1. Archbishop Lefebvre, for all his wisdom, felt unable to settle the question of the validity of the promulgation of the Code, but the content – as the principles outlined in the apostolic letter of enactment (25 January 1983) – made him hold it as doubtful. In this case, according to canon 15 (n.14), this new legislation is not binding. In this situation, according to canon 23 (n. 21), the 1917 Code is not presumed revoked, but the new legislation must defer to the previous one and if possible be reconciled to the 1917 Code. The guiding principles of this delicate reconciliation follow.
  1. The 1917 Code is the reference in that it contains the spirit of the Church in all its purity and we follow it on principle to the extent that we can.
  1. This does not mean that we should outright reject the entire new Code. Indeed, on the one hand the law of the Church, even codified, does not form an inseparable whole that we must accept or reject. On the other hand certain norms of the new Code are justified because they provide a useful simplification or they correspond to a homogeneous development of the practice of the Church or to a better adaptation to circumstances. Thus, nothing prevents us from using that what is good in the new legislation and harmonizing it with the 1917 Code.
  1. We are obligated to refuse the new norms where they are opposed to the Catholic Faith or to the divine constitution of the Church or when they deviate from the protection due to Faith and Morals (eg., the new rules on mixed marriages, n. 1124-1129). In contrast, where the new norms are in accordance to what has been established (5) and appear justified, then we will retain them in place of the old in order not to deprive us or the faithful of the benefits they bring. (This is the case where certain impediments to marriage were removed: since the dispensing of ‘minor’ impediments was systematically granted, it was therefore justifiable to remove them). But where the new norms are not bad in themselves, but do not bring any improvement, we must insist on using the 1917 Code.
  1. Another principle must be applied: When the validity (of acts or sacraments) is at stake, it is difficult to declare as invalid that which is held as valid elsewhere in the Church, and on the other hand, there is also a practical necessity, for the good of the faithful, not to place them in opposition to the legislation in force in the official Church. In these cases, we opt for the 1983 norms, but then we reinforce our practice by leaning on the 1917 Code (for example, impediments to marriage due to age or close family relationships).
  1. Finally, regarding the matter and the form of the sacraments, we must err on the side of caution and, for example, consider as doubtful Confirmation conferred with oils other than olive oil, until the Church rules otherwise.

Decision approved in outline by the General Council in Rickenbach, 3 January 1992, developed by the Canonical Commission, and approved by the Superior General in Rickenbach, 8 February 1992.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The following link contains a gold mine of the works of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Let us keep the Archbishop’s memory and mission intact and not distorted as it has been in the neo-SSPX.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The following (in blue font) is the Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X formulated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  Since 1981, this Declaration has been required to be signed by candidates before receiving the subdiaconate.  After the Archbishop’s death in 1991, the formula was modified to include a provision to deal with the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  How many people would be willing to sign this today?  I would.


I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize _______________ as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.


I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However, considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.


I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.


That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass. 


Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the  liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make  exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of  Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.


In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.


Signed ________________________

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |






 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Thanks to a French Canadian gentleman of the Resistance, here is a translated into English extract of a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on April 11, 1990 in Econe, Switzerland.  This extract concerns the liturgical reforms attributed to Pope John XXIII.  It is clear from this conference that a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre cannot reject the 1962 Missal and Breviary.


The audio extract (in French) of the conference regarding this subject is provided below, courtesy of the same French Canadian gentlemen.


 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The owner of the website Milita Jesu Christi found a gem on Bishop Williamson’s former public position on the New Mass.  You may listen to the audio recording below.  I do not know the date and place of this recording.


In this recording, Bishop Williamson says that the New Mass is “illicit in any case”, that it is “intrinsically evil”, and that “one may not attend a valid, illicit Mass anymore than a Satanic Mass”.  Wow!  What a difference this is from what the same Bishop Williamson said to the lady in the Mahopac, NY conference given on June 28, 2015, where he basically told her that it was okay to continue attending the New Mass so long as her faith was nourished by it.  The words His Excellency uttered in this conference (and his later Eleison Comments) have caused strife within the Resistance between priests and faithful alike.  Yet, His Excellency has not backed down from what he said at that conference.


What a shame it is that an old wound has been opened up by His Excellency on a matter that had already been settled by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is that the New Mass is bad in itself and hence it may not be attended despite the reverence with which a priest celebrates it.  Therefore, the faithful followers of the Archbishop must resist Bishop Williamson or any other Resistance bishop, priest, or faithful who defend his words.


 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“I became aware of this desire of Rome to impose on us their ideas and their way of seeing things. Cardinal Ratzinger always said to me, “But, Monsignor, there is only one Church, you must not make a parallel Church.”


What is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear! When he explicitly told us: “Obviously, if we grant you this protocol, some privileges, you will also have to accept what we do; and therefore, in the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, a New Mass will also have to be said every Sunday.”…


You see clearly that he wanted to bring us back to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible because it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to put an end to Tradition. They grant nothing out of esteem for the traditional liturgy, but simply to deceive those whom they give it to, and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge in the Traditional block to destroy it.


These are their politics, their conscious tactics! They do not make mistakes and you know the pressures they exert …”

(Conference at Econe, September 9, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” 

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Two Years after the Consecrations”, Address Given to Priests in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.

(September 22, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |